Three years ago this month, I wrote a piece entitled “Who’s to Blame for the Iraq War?” to mark the seventh anniversary of the US invasion. My sole purpose in compiling a by-no-means-exhaustive list of 20 Israel partisans who played key roles in inducing America into making that disastrous strategic blunder was to help dispel the widespread confusion — some of it sown under the guise of “progressive investigative journalism” by likely crypto-Zionists – about why the United States made that fateful decision. As the tenth anniversary approaches, there is no excuse for anyone genuinely interested in the facts to deny the ultimate responsibility of Tel Aviv and its foreign agents for the quagmire in Iraq. Nevertheless, it’s an appropriate time to remind ourselves of some of the chief architects of the devastating Iraq War.

1. Ahmed Chalabi, the source of much of the false “intelligence” about Iraqi WMD, was introduced to his biggest boosters Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz by their mentor, a University of Chicago professor who had known the Iraqi con man since the 1960s. An influential Cold War hawk, Albert Wohlstetter fittingly has an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) conference centre named in his honor.

2. In 1982, Oded Yinon’s seminal article, “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s” was published in Kivunim, a Hebrew-language journal affiliated with the World Zionist Organization. “Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets,” advised Yinon. “Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel.”

3. “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” a report prepared for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, recommended “removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq—an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.” Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board during the initial years of the George W. Bush administration, was the study group leader.

4, 5. A November 1997 Weekly Standard editorial entitled “Saddam Must Go” opined: “We know it seems unthinkable to propose another ground attack to take Baghdad. But it’s time to start thinking the unthinkable.” The following year, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), an influential neoconservative group, published a letter to President Clinton urging war against Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein on the pretext that he was a “hazard” to “a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil.” PNAC co-founders William Kristol and Robert Kagan also co-authored the “Saddam Must Go” editorial.

6. In Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, published by AEI Press in 1999, David Wurmser argued that President Clinton’s policies in Iraq were failing to contain the country and proposed that the US use its military to redraw the map of the Middle East. He would go on to serve as Mideast adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney from 2003 to mid-2007.

7. On September 15, 2001 at Camp David, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz attempted to justify a US attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan because it was “doable.” In the lead-up to the war, he assured Americans that it was “wildly off the mark” to think hundreds of thousands of troops would be needed to pacify a postwar Iraq; that the Iraqis “are going to welcome us as liberators”; and that “it is just wrong” to assume that the United States would have to fund the Iraq war.

8. On September 23, 2001, Senator Joe Lieberman, who had pushed for the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that there was evidence that “suggests Saddam Hussein may have had contact with bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network, perhaps [was] even involved in the September 11 attack.”

9. A November 12, 2001 New York Times editorial called an alleged meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent in Prague an “undisputed fact”. Celebrated for his linguistic prowess, columnist William Safire was egregiously sloppy in his use of language here.

10. A November 20, 2001 Wall Street Journal op-ed argued that the US should continue to target regimes that sponsor terrorism, claiming, “Iraq is the obvious candidate, having not only helped al Qaeda, but attacked Americans directly (including an assassination attempt against the first President Bush) and developed weapons of mass destruction.” The professor of strategic studies at the Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University who made these spurious claims was Eliot Cohen.

11. George W. Bush’s January 2002 State of the Union address infamously described Iraq as part of an “axis of evil.” It was David Frum, Bush’s Canadian-born speechwriter, who coined the provocative phrase.

12. In a February 2002 article entitled “How to win World War IV,” Norman Podhoretz, the longtime editor of Commentary magazine, asserted: “Yet whether or not Iraq becomes the second front in the war against terrorism, one thing is certain: there can be no victory in this war if it ends with Saddam Hussein still in power.”

13. Kenneth Adelman, Defense Policy Board member and PNAC signatory, predicted in a February 13, 2002 Washington Post op-ed: “I believe that demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.”

14. On August 3, 2002, Charles Krauthammer, the psychiatrist-turned-Washington Post columnist, enticed Americans with this illusory carrot: “If we win the war, we are in control of Iraq, it is the single largest source of oil in the world…. We will have a bonanza, a financial one, at the other end, if the war is successful.”

16. “Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel.” Despite this candid admission to a foreign policy conference at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, Philip Zelikow, a member of President Bush’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, authored the National Security Strategy of September 2002 that provided the justification for a preemptive war against Iraq.

17. According to a December 7, 2002 New York Times article, the role of convicted Iran-Contra conspirator Elliott Abrams during Colin Powell’s efforts to negotiate a resolution on Iraq at the United Nations was “to make sure that Secretary Powell did not make too many concessions to the Europeans on the resolution’s wording, pressing a hard-line view.” Abrams was senior director of Near East and North African affairs at the National Security Council during the George W. Bush administration.

18. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who was Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff until he was indicted for lying to federal investigators in the Valerie Plame case, helped draft Colin Powell’s fraudulent February 5, 2003 UN speech.

19. According to Julian Borger’s July 17, 2003 Guardian article entitled “The spies who pushed for war,” the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans (OSP) “forged close ties to a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation inside Ariel Sharon’s office in Israel” to provide the Bush administration with alarmist reports on Saddam’s Iraq. Douglas Feith was the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy who headed the OSP.

20. Bernard Lewis, a British-born professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University whose 1990 essay “The Roots of Muslim Rage” introduced the dubious concept of a “Clash of Civilizations,” has been called “perhaps the most significant intellectual influence behind the invasion of Iraq.”

—

Maidhc Ó Cathail writes extensively on U.S. foreign policy and the Middle East.

Chuck Hagel And A Sense Of Humor
By Steve Sailer on March 1, 2013 at 12:27am
http://www.vdare.com/posts/chuck-hagel-and-a-sense-of-humor

In contrast to Bryan Caplan’s advice to the GOP to make itself more popular by bending over backward to mollify the sensitivities of newcomers, the state of Israel, and Israel hobbyists in the U.S., follow a strategy of constant strident self-assertion.

As the Hagel debate showed, the essential problem for the GOP is this: You know how T. Boone Pickens has spent a couple of hundred million dollars building his alma mater, Oklahoma State, into a college football powerhouse? Does T. Boone Pickens want to negotiate peace on the football field, to sit down with Oklahoma’s backers and call the whole game off? Of course not. What would be the fun of that? He wants to WIN.

Well, a lot of the big money behind the GOP (and behind the Democrats, too — e.g., Hillary’s main money man Haim Saban) feels toward Israel the way Pickens feels toward the Oklahoma State Cowboys. Pickens doesn’t want peace on the football field, he wants victory. Similarly, much of the big money and the big media don’t really want peace in the Middle East. They want their favorite country to win, to crush its foes, or, at minimum, for the game of nations to go on and on to give them something to talk about. It’s their hobby. It’s a perfectly natural male rooting urge.
But, here’s the GOP’s problem: You can’t mention this. You can joke about Pickens’s obsession with OK St. winning, but you can’t joke about, say, Sheldon Adelson’s obsession with his wife’s native country crushing their foes.
Poor Chuck Hagel vaguely alluded skeptically to this massive phenomenon a couple of times over the last couple of decades, and got roasted alive for it to, as Voltaire would say, “encourage the others.”

The problem is that what goes unsaid, eventually goes unthought, enstupefying the Party.
So, the first thing Republicans need is the freedom to joke about the neocons’ infatuation with Israel.

On 3/26/2013 Iran is expected to meet with other world powers in Astana, Kazakhstan to discuss its nuclear program. Discussions that the occupiers of Palestine fervently hope will not be successful. It is toward this end that their key demand this week to the US Congress, the White House and the European Union is “to cast responsibility on the Iranians by blaming them for the talks’ failure in the clearest terms possible.”

According to the Al-Monitor of 3/19/13, Israel also demands that the countries meeting in Kazakhstan “make it perfectly clear that slogans such as ‘negotiations can’t go on forever’ are their marching orders to the White House, and they want the Kazakhstan attendees to act “so severely that the Iranians realize that they face a greater threat than just Israeli military action.” “The message must be that this time the entire west, behind Israel’s leadership, is contemplating the launch of a massive military action.” Unsaid is that “the entire West” is expected to confront Iran militarily while Tel Aviv’s forces will mop up Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Syria if necessary.

Pending the above arrangements, Israel this week is further demanding that the Obama White House issue another Executive Order dramatically ratcheting up the US-led Sanctions against Iran and Syria while it prepares for a hoped for “ game changing international economic blockade, including no-fly zones enforced by NATO.

To achieve yet another lawyer of severe sanctions, and at the behest of AIPAC, a “legislative planning” meeting was called by Congressman Eliot Engel, who represents New Yorks 17th District (the Bronx) and who is the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (Florida’s 27th District), Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. The session was held in a posh Georgetown restaurant and participant’s included representatives from AIPAC, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain plus half a dozen Congressional staffers.

Congressman Engel has co-sponsored virtually every anti-Arab, anti-Islam, anti-Palestinian, anti-Iran, and anti-Syrian Congressional broadside since he entered Congress a quarter-century ago. His campaign literature last fall stated: “I am a strong supporter of sanctions against those who repeatedly reject calls to behave as responsible nations. (Israel excepted-ed). I have authored or helped author numerous bills which have been signed into law to impose sanctions against rogue states including Iran and Syria.” Ros-Lehtinen and Engel led all members with AIPAC donations on the House side in last fall’s Congressional elections. They are ranked number one and two respectively as still serving career recipients of Israel-AIPAC’s “indirect” campaign donations.

Some Congressional operatives accuse Rep. Ros-Lehtinen of being a bit lazy and neglecting the bread and butter needs of her Florida constituents. But others argue that it depends on which constituents one has in mind. Her election mailings and her Congressional website claim that the Congresswoman “led all Congressional efforts tirelessly to generate votes to block what she views as anti-Israel resolutions offered at the former UN Commission on Human Rights.”

A big fan of US-led sanctions against Iran and Syria, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act on January 6, 2005, which increased sanctions and expanded punitive measures against the Iranian people until the Iranian regime has dismantled its nuclear plants. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen also introduced H.R. 957, the Iran Sanctions Amendments Act, which she claims “will close loopholes in current law by holding export credit agencies, insurers, and other financial institutions accountable for their facilitation of investments in Iran and sanction them as well.” In addition, H.R. 957 seeks to impose liability on parent companies for violations of sanctions by their foreign entities. She also co-sponsored H.R 1357 which requires “U.S. government pension funds to divest from companies that do any business with any country that does business with Iran.” Her campaign literature states that, “She was proud to be the leading Republican sponsor of H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act. This bill applies and enhances a wide range of additional sanctions.”

In addition, last year Illeana introduced H.R. 394, which enlarges US Federal Court Jurisdiction regarding claims by American citizens their claims in U.S. courts. Unclear is whether she realizes that one consequence of her initiative would be to open even wider US courtroom doors to Iranian-Americans and Syria-Americans who today are being targeted and damaged by the lady’s ravenous insatiable craving for civilian targeting economic sanctions.

But Ileana and Elliot appear to be fretting.

So is Israel.

The reasons are several and they include the fact that the US-led sanctions have failed to date to achieve the accomplishments they were designed to produce. These being to cripple the Iranian economy, provoke a popular protest among the Iranian people over inflation and scarcity of food and medicines, weaken Iran as much as possible before adopting military measures against it, and, most essentially, achieving regime change to turn the clock back to those comfortable days of our submissive, compliant Shah.

Zionist prospects for Syria aren’t any better at the moment. Tel Aviv’s to intimidate the White House into invading Syria have not worked. Plan A has failed miserably according to the Israeli embassy people attending the Engel-Ros Litinen’s informal conflab. Neither did the “how about we just arm the opposition” plan that originated last year with David H. Petraeus and was supported by Hillary Clinton while being pushed by AIPAC. The goal was to create allies in Syria that the US and Israel could control if Mr. Assad was removed from power. Moreover, the White House believes that there are no good options for Obama. It has vetoed 4 recent Israeli proposals including arming the rebels and is said to believe that Syria is already dangerously awash with “unreliable arms.”

The recent shriveling in Israeli prospects for a dramatic Pentagon intervention in Syria reflect White House war weariness. And also Israel’s predilection to bomb targets itself in Syria, as it did recently to assassinate a senior Iranian officer in the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hassan Shateri. Contrary to the false story that Israel attacked a missiles convoy, some unassembled equipment was damaged but that was not the primary target according to Fred Hof, a former U.S. State Department official. Gen. Shateri was.

Making matters worse for Tel Aviv, the Israeli military is reportedly becoming skittish due to its deteriorating political and military status in the region and its troops have recently completed subterranean warfare drills to prepare them for a potential clash with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Jerusalem Post reported on 2/20/13. “Today during training, we simulated a northern terrain, that included what we might encounter,” Israeli Lt. Sagiv Shoker, commander of a military Reconnaissance Unit of the Engineering Corps, based at the Elikim base in northern Israel near the border with Lebanon explained. Shoker added that his units spent a week focused on how to approach Hezbollah’s alleged underground bunkers and tunnels in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley quietly and quickly. Israeli forces commander Gantz has been complaining recently to the Israeli cabinet that Hezbollah Special Forces are gaining much valuable experience in Syria fighting highly skilled and motivated al Nusra jihadists and his troops may not be prepared to face them on the battlefield if a conflict erupts. It has been known since 2006 that Israeli soldiers “are having motivation deficits” as Gantz and others have complained.

Ordinary citizens in Iran and Syria with whom this observer met recently, including some with whom he has shared lengthy conversations while posing many questions, cannot ignore the burden of the US-led sanctions in various aspects of their lives. Nor can the Iranian or Syrian governments or their economic institutions. At the beginning of the summer of 2010, and even more so since the summer of 2012, the US-led civilian targeting sanctions imposed were significantly tightened by the Obama administration and its allies. The administration realized that the sanctions imposed on Iran until then were ineffective and understood that Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear power capability would quickly leave the US with no alternative than the acceptance of a nuclear Iran. But the administration, according to former State Department official Hof, believed that unless it took more drastic measures against Iran, Israel would launch a military strike against Iran which would likely destroy Zionist Israel- a prospect not every US official and Congressional staffer privately laments. Congressional sources report that the White House now feels that Iran has achieved deterrence and that Israel would be dangerously foolhardy to attack the country.

While Israel advocates an economic blockade of Iran and Syria, under binding rules of international and US law, economic blockades are acts of war. They are variously defined as surrounding a nation with hostile forces, economic besieging, preventing the passage in or out of a country of civilian supplies or aid. It is an act of naval warfare to block access to a country’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft, absent a formal declaration of war and approval of the UN Security Council.

All treaties to which America is a signatory, including the UN Charter, are binding US law. Chapter VII authorizes only the Security Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to) restore international peace and stability.” It permits a nation to use force (including a blockades) only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security Council or under Article 51 allowing the “right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member….until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.”

As International law Professor Francis Boyle reminds us, Customary International Law recognizes economic blockades as an act of war because of the implied use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Writes Boyle, “Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare.” America approved these Declarations, thereby are became binding US law as well “as part of general international law and customary international law.” US presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called economic blockades acts of war.
So has the US Supreme Court.

In Bas v. Tingy (1800), the US Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of fighting an “undeclared war” (read extreme economic sanctions). It ruled the seizure of a French vessel (is) an act of hostility or reprisal. The Court cited Talbot v. Seaman (1801) in ruling that “specific legislative authority was required in the seizure. In Little v. Barreme (1804), the Court held that “even an order from the President could not justify or excuse an act that violated the laws and customs of warfare. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that a captain of a United States warship could be held personally liable in trespass for wrongfully seizing a neutral Danish ship, even though” presidential authority ordered it.
“The Prize Cases” (1863) is perhaps the most definitive US Supreme Court ruling on economic blockades requiring congressional authorization. The case involved President Lincoln’s ordering “a blockade of coastal states that had joined the Confederacy at the outset of the Civil War. The Court….explicitly (ruled) that an economic blockade is an act of war and is legal only if properly authorized under the Constitution.”

Iran and Syria pose no threat to the US or any peaceful law abiding nation. Imposing a blockade against either violates the UN Charter and settled international humanitarian laws as well as US law. It would constitute an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the designated a “supreme international crime” above all others. It would render the Obama administration and every government of other participating nations criminally liable.

Contrary to what the occupiers of Palestine may fantasize, if the White House wants an economic blockade of Iran or Syria it must declare war, letting the American people be heard on the subject and convince the UN Security Council to pass a UNSCR under Chapter 7.

The White House cannot legally, morally or consistently with claimed American humanitarian values continue to target civilian populations with economic sanctions on the cheap.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and can be reached c/ofplamb@gmal.com

INCOG’s Army Recruitment Poster Concept (rejected)

Last week, “president” Obongo-STEIN’s out-going Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta (who may or may not be a stinking Jew), unilaterally ordered the US Military to allow women to serve in combat roles on the front lines. Along with last year’s repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” there’s no telling what kinds of bizarre “whatevers” will now flock into the Armed Forces so they can finally act out their sick military sex fantasies.

All this will put America’s real soldiers in harm’s way, no doubt at all. To say nothing about having to bear witness to all the nasty, disease-ridden, foul acts these sick faggots will eventually end up doing to each other’s rear with the gear. Good White Christian men — now locked forever in the Jew-instigated “fighting for our freedoms” circle jerk – are being ordered (along with all us poor saps back home) to accept Globalist Jewry’s never-ending BS social change no matter where they go.

The more homos and lezbos, the more of us freely denigrated White men (must I remind you always bear the brunt of America’s wars?) will have to pick up the slack up front. Sure, a few ugly-ass bull dykes will be there to suck up as much media attention and glory from the brainwashing Jews as possible, should they get a dangerous, life-threatening hangnail while in “combat.” I can see all the stupid tear-jerking “60 minutes” interviews now.

And, just like same sex marriage, the lying, subversive, Jew-owned media is now trying to tell us the majority of Americans are all for it and it’ll be so good for our troops. Don’t you friggin’ believe the brainwashing! All their bosses care about is more cannon fodder up front for their Zionist wars of the NWO. Iran, anyone?

Once again, decent White Christian taxpayers get crapped on royally, while Globalist Jewry continues turning this country into a filthy, GD dung heap!

Obama Tailoring Military Leadership to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans

Dr. Jim Garrow is well-known for his books and for his humanitarian work to rescue Chinese girls from certain death. The one-child policy in China leads many parents to kill girl babies, either before or after they are born. It is far more prestigious to have a male child than a girl, so they kill the girls.

Over the last 16 years, Garrow’s efforts have rescued an estimated 40,000 girl babies from China at a cost of over $25 million. Almost all of these girls would have been killed had they not been rescued and taken out of the country. Today, he is the founder and executive director of the Bethune Institute’s Pink Pagoda schools. There are 168 private schools in his program that employ 6,300 people, all with the goal of raising and teaching the Chinese girls in a English speaking environment.

Garrow’s has written about his effort to save China’s girls by authoring the book, The Pink Pagoda: One Man’s Quest to End Gendercide in China.

Dr. Garrow is not known for being a wild crackpot or part of the political fringe, so when he recently made the following post on his Facebook page, it got the attention of a number people:

“I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new ‘litmus test’ in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. ‘The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not.’ Those who will not are being removed.”

“The man who told me this is one of America’s foremost military heroes.”

One has to wonder if this had anything to do with President Obama’s dismissal of Marine Corps Gen. James Mattis from his post as commander of the Central Command. The Washington Free Beacon commented on the dismissal, saying:

“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

When you think about everything Obama has done to undermine the traditional integrity of the US military, it all makes sense. He forced the military to accept homosexuals and then took action on any who opposed that measure. Then Obama started attacking the military retirement system making a military career less attractive than before. Then he took action against military chaplains who stood up for their faith. Lastly, the Pentagon has issued orders for troops in the Middle East to remove all religious symbolism, however this is largely enforced against Christians and Jews, but not for Muslims.

The Obama administration was outraged when American soldiers burned a stack of Qurans. He said nothing about the Qurans being defaced by Muslim prisoners and Obama said nothing about the stack of Bibles that were burned at the same time.

Obama condemned the soldiers that urinated on several dead Taliban and ordered their court martial, but he said nothing about the way captured American soldiers were being tortured by their Muslim captors.

Ever since taking office 4 years ago, Obama has been carefully tailoring the military to his specifications. Once he started making his sweeping changes, many career military personnel including commanding officers began retiring or resigning their commissions, leaving the military to the liberals.

I’ve been writing for a couple years now saying that Obama has plans to purposely destroy America’s economy in order to create a national emergency. This would give him the reason to declare martial law and assume dictatorial control. He will disband Congress and establish his own Gestapo style national police.

When I wrote these things, I said the only two things that could prevent him from succeeding is the military because I seriously doubted that they would fire on fellow Americans and the 300 million guns in the hands of private citizens. But it seems that Obama is actively working towards eliminating both of these last remaining obstacles and when they are gone, mark my word, all hell will break lose and America will be lost.

Obama Nominates Hagel for Secretary of Defense

EF OFF JEW BOYS and HOMOS!

Today Obama announced the nomination for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel. Oh boy, the traitor Zionist creeps out there are foaming at the mouth!

Hagel is an ENLISTED Viet Nam veteran and a highly decorated patriot. Jew traitors hate him because he once had the cojones to say he was not elected as an ISRAELI senator, but as an United States senator. He even had the nerve to call the Zionists the JEWISH LOBBY.* Of course, that wasn’t entirely true (with all the idiot Christian Zionists out there), but does pinpoint the real source of nefarious Fifth Columnist Neocons now infesting DC and putting our boys in harm’s way.

Good for you, Obama! I guess I now had better start dressing the part as an Obama boy (right). Yep, back off, INCOG MAN is going grunge! It’s just to hook up with the hippie chicks, so don’t go have yourselves any fits.

Pay attention and you’ll see all kinds of boisterous Jews coming out of the woodwork with crap against Hagel during the confirmation hearings. Already the Zio traitors are enlisting the faggot brigade since Hagel once called Clinton’s nomination for ambassador to Luxembourg, James Hormel, “openly, aggressively gay.” RINO South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham, went on FOX news the other day all twittered up about Hagel, supposedly because of Israel, but really because he’s a “Friend of Dorothy,” or giant closet homo the Jews have in their pocket (see photos below).

The picture at the bottom right is fake. I know, because I did it long ago. It still cracks me the hell up.

Yep, the confirmation hearings are going to be hot. Expect the Jews to dredge up all kinds of dirt on Hagel.

Let’s say the guy once knocked up some babe in high school. The Jews will know. Let’s say Hagel once got busted with a dime bag of cheap Mexican skunkweed. The Jews will know. Let’s say Hagel built a 1/32nd model kit of the evil Nazi Stuka airplane when he was a kid (like I did). The Jews will know.

The poor guy is going to get hammered with all sorts of stupid nonsense going back decades.

I say unto you, my brothers and sisters, support Chuck Hagel. Should the Jew creeps get their corrupted Shabbos Goys not to confirm him, we can use that for Agit/Prop purposes. Should he get in, maybe we’ll have more exposure of the Zionist snakes at AIPAC, or at least keep us out of another Jew-instigated war like in Iran.

Democrap Congress creep and AIPAC spy Jane Harman (right) with Palestinian-murdering Arch Zionist and Satan’s favorite vegetable, Ariel Sharon. Can you imagine this traitor as head of the CIA? The US branch office of MOSSAD, sure.

If Syria’s Assad bites the dust, expect the Iran business to once again jump to the front burner. The Globalist Jews want Syria neutralized before they suck the US into war with Iran. That way, less precious Jewboys will have to fight anyone besides the sling-shot wielding Palestinians.

Now I’m not saying Hagel’s perfect for the cause. But you use the cards you’re dealt with. Understand, hombres?

I don’t know a whole lot about John Brennan to head the CIA. All I can say is that I’m just happy Obama didn’t nominate that creepy Jewess spy, Jane Harman, as some speculated he might. Gawd, if that happened, my brain would’ve melted.

– Phillip Marlowe

* They even reported this on ABC and later on FOX (because the Globalist Jews at ABC did). Why? Because it’s already out there everywhere by now. Why fight it, when they can spin it? They made it look like it’s a potential problem not only to “Israel-supporting Christians,” but also to the Gays. Pay attention and you’ll notice how they blend all the Jew crap together — it’s less stinky that way.

We’re supposed to be so understanding of the lovable, tasteful homos, yet always totally supportive of the ever besieged, ever holocausted hebrews in sacred Israel — no matter what!

Best Person for the Pentagon?

by Ludwig Watzal / December 18th, 2012

http://dissidentvoice.org/2012/12/best-person-for-the-pentagon/

The rumor mill is cooking in Washington D.C. that the former Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel should become the next Secretary of Defense. If US President Barack Obama chooses him, it would be a wise decision. Whether he would get this candidate approved by the US Senate remains to be seen. It seems there is something to this because the Israel Lobbyists are going haywire. A long list of Chuck Hagel’s alleged misconduct or “insufficient voting record” on Israel-issues has been presented and an anti-Hegel mood has been created to undermine his approval by the Senate. It would be ridiculous if the Lobby succeeded in preventing Hagel’s appointment, like they did with former ambassador Charles Freeman. After the Lobby had bullied Freeman, Obama dropped him like a hot potato.

Definitely Hagel does not belong to the huge crowd of Israel lobbyists and “Israel-firsters” that populate the inner Belt Way and determine US foreign policy towards the Middle East to the detriment of the US. He is just a “normal” former US senator who sticks to his oath of office and to the US constitution, putting the national interest of his country before the Israeli one. He also has refused to sign on to many silly pro-Israel statements that came from the Hill such as the “Syria Accountability Act “or the “Libya-Iran sanctions act”. And he has called for direct negotiations between Iran and the US and between Hamas and the US. The Israel lobbyists defame him already as an “anti-Semite”. Coming from the “Israel lobby” such smear rhetoric should not mean a thing anybody, except, that he views Israel like it is: an occupying power that violates human rights on a regular basis, disregards international law, and disdains the United Nations. Such a state constitutes not an asset but a heavy liability to the foreign policy of the US.

In his book America: Our Next Chapter, he writes about Iran: “Isolating nations is risky. It turns them inward, and makes their citizens susceptible to the most demagogic fear mongering.” The answer, he says, is engagement. “Distasteful as we may find that country’s rulers, the absence of any formal governmental relations with Iran ensures that we will continue to conduct this delicate international relationship through the press and speeches, as well as through surrogates and third parties, on issues of vital strategic importance to our national interests. Such a course can only result in diplomatic blind spots that will lead to misunderstandings, miscalculation, and, ultimately, conflict.” For Hagel, an Iranian bomb would not be the end of the world, an opinion that is also held by Kenneth Waltz and other realists in international relations. They argue that Iran needs the bomb in order to counterbalance Israel’s huge unchecked nuclear arsenal which is perceived as a security threat to the whole region. Hagel does not regard Iranian diplomats as outcasts; consequently, he met several times with the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations.

Already in 2006, Hagel wrote in an article in the New York Review of Books“that negotiating with Hamas was Israel’s last chance for peace”. Israel should grasp the opportunity to engage in direct negotiations with Hamas. Israeli politicians know that the rhetoric of the Hamas charter is meaningless. One should read Khaled Hroub’s book Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide. It’s written in a question-answer sequence in a way that even US politicians would understand. The Emir of Qatar has already pulled the teeth of the organization by financially sweetening Hamas’ move from Damascus to Doha. The Emir even paid a visit to the Gaza Strip to substitute the radical rhetoric with money. Hamas has since mutated from a roaring lion to a rug, not to speak of “President” Mahmoud Abbas.

Hagel sees the attack on Iraq as a triumph of neoconservative ideology. As the new Secretary of Defense he could represent a counterweight to the liberal interventionists that still dominate Obama’s inner circle. He also could back the President against the bullying of the “Israel lobby” and its cheerleaders on Capitol Hill. President Obama needs guys like Hagel and John Kerry as the new Secretary of State around him to reframe US foreign policy towards the Middle East. American interests must have top priority. The US should engage in direct talk with Iran on the nuclear issue without the European cacophony and Israel’s detrimental influence. Iran has to be treated on an equal footing. And Obama should put the Israeli Prime Minister in its place. He cannot accept any longer to be pushed around by a leader of a tiny little country. Hopefully, Obama and his new team will open a more realistic chapter on US Middle Eastern policy.

Roosevelt Wanted The Japs To Attack Pearl Harbor

THOSE WHO FORGET THE PAST ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT IT. And those totally clueless about the real past have it coming to them.

ONE OF THE big questions of history is whether or not Roosevelt knew the Japs were going to bomb Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. You know, “The Day of Infamy” and all that jazz. Well, I’m here to tell you that not only did FDR know the Japs were coming, he purposefully worked at goading them to do just that for over a year!

Finding a way to get Americans in a fighting mood for his fat cat International Jew buds became FDR’s secret lust after getting re-elected for his second term. He really wanted America to get at Der Fuehrer man, the Jew’s worst enemy at the time (and still being used to this day). The deal was to make the Japs attack us first and get Americans riled-up enough to deflect into killing the enemies of the Globalist Jews — the Nazi Germans (White people). The Japs stabbing us in the back would be just the ticket. Pretty much the same thing happened with 9/11 and Iraq, when you think about it.

FDR even admitted a “Europe first” effort from day-one (because of logistics he couldn’t hide it). Most of America didn’t want to go fight in another European war overseas (88% were against it in a poll at the time). However, the fools sucked-down FDR’s bold-faced lie about keeping them out of war and re-elected the squirrelly bastard to another term (or the election was stolen). That sealed the deal for 2,500 dead at Pearl Harbor and another 418,000 dead American Goyim (virtually all White Gentile men) over the next four years, to say nothing of the tens of millions of other people in the world.

Three civilians were killed in this Packard sedan when an errant 5 inch US anti-aircraft shell exploded nearby, gutting them out with flying, twisted shrapnel. About 50 locals died from “collateral damage,” including a 3-month old baby.

“So, what’s all this got to do with me, in this day and age?” You might be asking.

Let’s just say you live in a pissant little town somewhere in middle America, minding your own business, trying to make a buck. Now, imagine some hook-nosed, greedy Khazar bastard someplace (maybe even Tel Aviv), who wants to stir-up war hysteria against Iran by faking a terror attack on America. At this very moment Mr. Chubby Neocohen has just spun himself around in a little circle with a blindfold on and jabbed his fat, freckled finger on a map — right where your White ass lives. Guess what? Sayonara, sucker!

People can’t seem to get it through their big fat heads that these kind of arrogant people don’t give a damn whether you live or die. If it advances what they want in the world, then your ass is grass. Compare it to the False Flag travesty of all time: 9/11. The same power structure willing to let the Japs sneak up on us and kill Americans back in 1941 are the very same slime that were willing to see 3,031 civilians die on that September morning, just a few years ago.

“Oh, you don’t know all this about Pearl Harbor,” befuddled fools might blubber. “You’re just going off on all the conspiracy nonsense like you always do,” they’ll whine. Uh, brainiac boy, just because the History Channel hasn’t done anything on the story doesn’t mean it’s not true. Far from it. In fact, just like the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, it’s conclusively obvious to anyone with half-a-brain and has read what’s out there now.

Robert B. Stinnett in a book published back in 2000 called “Day of Deceit, the Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor,” totally blows the lid off the lies and cover-ups of Pearl Harbor so much it’s not funny. He unearthed intelligence memos and decrypted radio traffic that clearly shows — without a shadow of doubt — what the mainstream media won’t dare say: FDR most definitely knew in advance the Japs were coming and where they would strike.

Stinnett also conclusively proves the existence of documents still carefully hidden from the public to this very day. Why would they keep secret information from WWII, should you ask, should you have any kind of brain left after all the BS Jew media puts out?

Well, because they don’t want it to become too public that FDR was trying to get us into the war. It’s like this: (A) leads to B, (B) leads to C and (C) leads to D. Don’t you get it? The Jew Zionists behind all the bull in today’s world had a firm hand in the machinations way back when and still don’t want the Goyim in the US to get wise today. It’s so obvious that it totally irks the hell out of me that anyone could be so stupid not to see it.

Arthur McCollum

Stinnett (who served in the same squadron as Dubya’s dad, George H. W. Bush) used decades of research, Freedom of Information requests (FOI), careful cross-referencing of multiple diary entries and whatever military plans and reports that have surfaced over the years. He uncovered a secret 8 step program, designed by a guy named Captain Arthur H. McCollum [right], that FDR happily instituted (the actual memo can be readhere). This whole thing was specifically created to make the Japs angrier than hornets and itching to put the smack-down on America’s Pacific fleet!

One big cover-up of Pearl Harbor was the existence of a Jap spy, Tadashi Morimura, who moved freely about the island, spying and partying hard at night in Honolulu’s bars. The government lied, saying they had no knowledge of him until after December 7. But Stinnett shows that senior intelligence, the FBI and even Roosevelt himself had long been reading the Jap’s detailed secret messages that described Pearl Harbor as a sitting duck.

Roosevelt even had his Jew bud, RCA chairman David Sarnoff (later head of NBC), get into the act by dispatching him to Hawaii to make soothing assurances that the spy’s secret communications would be made available to Admiral Kimmel and General Short – the poor saps in charge of Hawaii’s defenses. But Stinnett clearly shows that Morimura’s intelligence messages were “deliberately derailed and mistranslated. There is only one plausible reason for the failure — to keep information from Kimmel and Short and so ensure an uncontested overt Japanese act of war.”

The government (and El Stupido historians ever since) have insisted the Japs maintained complete radio silence as they sailed out to attack Pearl Harbor, taking us by surprise. Nonsense, says Stinnett. The Japs broke the airwaves with numerous messages that correctly pin-pointed Admiral Nagumo’s aircraft carriers, revealing they were on a course for Hawaii. US code-breakers could read almost every word because they had long decrypted the Jap’s secret 5-Num code (usually called “JN-25″) as far back as October, 1940. This intelligence was routed only to certain military officers in the know and the White House.

Lt. Commander Joseph Rochefort ran the Navy’s code-breaking unit in Pearl Harbor (Station HYPO) and was obviously tasked beforehand to keep Kimmel and Short in the dark as much as possible. Now considered a hero of WWII because of Midway, Rochefort (played by actor Hal Holbrook in the movie, bottom left) was described as eccentric because he like to wear a smoking jacket and house slippers around the joint. The big time media Jew, David Sarnoff, also helped screw America at Pearl Harbor.

Roosevelt also kept Kimmel and Short from having the decryption machine needed to crack the Japanese PURPLE code (mostly used for diplomatic messages), forcing them to rely on whatever Washington deigned to share. Yet even Churchill (by that time owned by the Jews, too) received his PURPLE equipment and necessary decrypt info from FDR. Some historians have long said Churchill knew about the attack in advance, but cynically failed to alert FDR to get America into the war. But guess what? Both of these Zionist-corrupted bastards knew at the exact same time!

Hell, even the press knew far more about the dangers facing Pearl Harbor than Kimmel and Short. Chief of Staff, General George C. Marshall, held a top secret press briefing in November for seven print reporters (including NY Times and Newsweek), telling them that war would break out in the first 10 days of December, but to keep quiet in the meantime. The press also played a huge part in the subsequent cover-ups and blame games; UPI ran a story all across the nation by a reporter named Joseph Myler that placed the fault totally on Kimmel and Short. Anyone who says the press can’t be used to keep us American people in the dark doesn’t know JACK!

Roosevelt even specifically ordered the north Pacific ocean vacated by commercial vessels and even US naval ships (where the attack would most likely come from)! Can you believe that BS? Far be it for the Jap strike force to be detected unexpectedly and give Pearl Harbor the time to prepare and possibly save American lives.

Hawaii’s General Short asked Station HYPO code-breaker and insider to FDR’s efforts, the eccentric Lt. Commander Joseph Rochefort, for decryption help on November 27th, but Rochefort’s reply (if any) has yet to be made public. Stinnett relates that another request was seemingly made in January 1942, long after Short was dismissed; it turns out some secretive party had later used the same document serial number as Short’s real request back in November and was probably done to confuse any future investigators as to exactly when Short wanted the help.

Navy communication eavesdroppers had even picked-up and understood the final attack order from Tokyo to the strike force then moving into position: “Climb Mount Niitaka 1208 repeat 1208″ (December 8th was Tokyo time). Rochefort specifically held back these crucial decrypts from Kimmel and Short, which would have given them plenty of time to meet the Japs head-on.

You might remember that one scene from the 1970′s movie “Tora, Tora Tora,” where the befuddled Japanese diplomat was hurriedly typing-out with one finger the final transmission of the infamous 14 part Tokyo War Ultimatum for a real-life deadline of 1 pm to Secretary of State Cordell Hull? Well, my friends, Roosevelt was reading the first 13 parts at 10 pm, the Saturday night before. He exclaimed: “This means war!” Sipping his morning joe at 10 am that Sunday morning (4:30 am in Hawaii), the final decoded 14th part was set down before him — in plenty of time to alert Pearl.

Yep, there was indeed time to get off a message off to alert the troops and sailors. For reasons never adequately explained, the scrambler phone wasn’t working and the message was sent on a Jew boat to China, via Sarnoff’s RCA commercial teletype. Of course, that too was inexplicably delayed, only arriving at army headquarters right as the attack was taking place. General MacArthur received his warning in the Philippines (even further across the Pacific), in plenty of time to take action.

Almost exactly like the 9/11 commission whitewash, Congress held hearings about Pearl Harbor back in 1945-46. Basically, it was all show and the real facts never came close to the light of day. The so-called “Winds Code” was really all BS, never even used by the Japs and turned into a red herring by the Democraps to confuse Retardicans and protect Roosevelt. It meant nothing except fodder for reporters and fooled historians ever since.

All the secret decrypts and memos were even kept from public exposure during Senator Strom Thurmond’s 1995 inquiry about the injustice done to Kimmel and Short; asked for by the families trying to get their good names cleared. These two fall guys suffered miserably from a stupid public who totally blamed them for Pearl Harbor. Sadly, Thurmond’s efforts did not officially exonerate the two; the important documents were, once again, not allowed as evidence in public.

Back in 1944, this army JAGD officer (more like “JAG-off”) named Henry C. Clausen, was sent out by Secretary of War Henry Stimson, to “interview” army personnel involved in Pearl Harbor. It was actually an intimidation mission to find scapegoats, protect the big fish involved and shift as much of the blame on Navy intelligence, as possible. His 800 page report covered the butts of FDR, Gen. George C. Marshall, Col. Walter Bedell Smith and other Army top brass. His work has been referred to by clueless historians ever since.

In his 1991 book “Pearl Harbor: Final Judgement,” Clausen even dares to call the few historians who said Roosevelt knew in advance as “conspiracy buffs.” Somethings never change. In his self-serving book’s forward, he stupidly writes:

“One merely has to employ common sense and remember Roosevelt was a Navy man through and through. he loved his ships; he loved the men who sailed them. Never, never would he allow his battleships sunk and his sailors drowned.”

Yeah, right. What a Goy putz. Most of the ships set-up as sitting ducks were antiquated WWI class, basically 27 years out of date. FDR even had Admiral Stark order out to sea at the last minute the two modern aircraft carriers we had to ferry a few planes to Midway and Wake island (a third was in San Diego). As for the sailors back at Pearl, they were merely cannon fodder who really meant nothing to Roosevelt.

Stinnett relates the bizarre story about this Clausen suck-up having his British driver chase down Colonel Rufus Bratton’s car on the autobahn in destroyed post-war Germany during the Potsdam conference.

Clausen wanted to intimidate Bratton into “modifying” his recollection of his delivery to General Marshall of the Tokyo Ultimatum. Back in Paris with the designated scapegoat in tow, Clausen (relating the story in his book) seems positively gleeful as Bratton, head bowed down after reading cover-your-boss’-ass affidavits from his, by now, former army pals. Bratton understands his army career is now ruined and all because he simply told the truth (Clausen, to protect Marshall and Col. Walter Bedell Smith, insists he was lying).

Stinnett, for all his excellent research and startling revelations, fails in the end putting two and two together about Roosevelt’s real ulterior motives. Either that, or understood where his research led.

He somehow concludes that Roosevelt was doing all this to combat a greater evil, that of Hitler springing the “holocaust” on all the Jews in Europe. That’s patently ridiculous as Roosevelt could not foresee any of that when he started the stealth efforts at getting us into war, even if true (which it wasn’t). More likely, Stinnett was emphasizing the holocaust business to placate Jew freaks in advance, quite possibly his publisher insisted that he tack on a couple of nonsense paragraphs before printing. That’s how strong the holocaust brainwashing of America has become.

If any brainiac boy tries to tell you that conspiracies or secrets can’t occur on the scale of 9/11, than you just tell them this: “The truth behind the attack on Pearl Harbor was kept a secret just like that, you moron.”

No, FDR didn’t “fake” the attack on Pearl, but the real facts behind it have been kept secret from the American people, even to the very day. Pearl Harbor is a prime example of what is termed the “Let It Happen On Purpose” (LIHOP) theory of 9/11, i. e. Bush and his minions knew what was going down, but turned a blind eye so they could use it to inflame the American public. Sounds plausible, but there’s tons of other evidence that screams the Zionists in DC and Tel Aviv had a hand in it from the get-go.

— Phillip Marlowe

CONTINUES AT “ROOSEVELT WAS A STINKING JEW” (to come)

SPECIAL INCOG MAN 3 PART SERIES!

INCOG MAN PERSONAL NOTE: I’ve had the honor of personally talking with people who were at Pearl Harbor on that fateful morning of December 7, 1941. The father of one of my friends was on his back porch shaving as the first wave of Jap planes flew in low and right past him through a notch in the mountains above Pearl. Being a military man, he knew exactly what was going down, Jack!

A Pretext for Deeper US Intervention

With dubious reports that Syria is preparing its stockpile of chemical weapons for use now dominating US media coverage, the familiar menace of WMDs in the Middle East has been resurrected once again to haunt the American public and gin up support for military intervention.

First appearing in a report Sunday in the New York Times, the latest Syrian WMD scare surfaced with an assertion from an unnamed US official that the Syrian military had begun “some potential chemical weapon preparation.” The official went on to state that the US is “worried about what the [Syrian] military is doing.”

One day later, yet another unnamed American official, again citing classified intelligence, told Wired magazine’s Danger Room blog that, “Engineers working for the Assad regime in Syria have begun combining the two chemical precursors needed to weaponize sarin gas.”

“International observers,” the Danger Room report continued, “are now more worried than they’ve ever been that the Damascus government could use its nerve agent stockpile to slaughter its own people.”

Similar reports on Syria’s purported preparation of chemical weapons have subsequently proliferated throughout the US media. Yet, as McClatchyreported, despite the widely published claims of anonymous US officials, “no public evidence” has been offered by the administration to justify its amplified concerns. Nor, it might be added, has any explanation been offered as to why the Syrian regime would knowingly seek to provoke a foreign military intervention by actually using its chemical weapons.

Of course, the propagandizing on behalf of the US government by the loyal legion of stenographers in the elite American media has allowed the Obama administration to renew its threat of military intervention.

Speaking Monday at the National Defense University in Washington, President Obama warned that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces would result in “consequences” and that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would be personally “held accountable” for their use. President Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, later went on to allude to a possible military intervention.

“We think it is important to prepare for all scenarios,” Carney said. “Contingency planning is the responsible thing to do.”

(US officials have previously stated that any effort to safeguard chemical weapons in Syria would require 75,000 troops.)

Breaking Free From Electoral Shackles

This stepped up US posturing towards Syria comes amid reports that the Obama administration, now free of any electoral restrains, is seriously contemplating greater intervention into the Syrian crisis.

As the New York Timesreported late last month (11/28), the Obama administration is now “considering deeper intervention to help push President Bashar al-Assad from power.”

According to the paper, “the combination of President Obama’s re-election, which has made the White House more willing to take risks, and a series of recent tactical successes by rebel forces, one senior administration official said, ‘has given this debate a new urgency, and a new focus.’”

The precise nature of the administration’s “deeper intervention” into Syria became clearer Tuesday, as the US-dominated NATO military alliance approved the deployment of the American-made Patriot anti-missile system along the Turkey-Syria border. According to a military source quoted by AFP, “up to six Patriot batteries and some 300-400 foreign troops to operate them” are to be deployed along the already tense border.

In explaining the need for deploying the Patriot batteries, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen directly cited the revived Syrian “chemical threat.” As Reuters reported, Rasmussen asserted that the specter of Syrian chemical weapons “made it urgent for the alliance to send Patriot anti-missile missiles to Turkey.”

The NATO alliance, of course, maintains that the missile deployment is simply defensive in nature. (A suspect claim repeatedly made regarding missile defense systems.) In fact, Rasmussen even went so far as to claim that the “weapons could help deescalate tensions” along the Syria-Turkey boarder. How exactly the deployment of yet more advanced weapons could function to deescalate tensions, Rasmussen left unclear. Instead, as Russian President Vladimir Putin countered Monday while in Istanbul, “increasing (military) potential will not settle the situation but create the opposite effect.”

Indeed, for in actuality, the NATO missile deployment will likely function to effectively carve out a “no-fly zone” in northern Syria. This, then, will pave the way for creating—a la Libya—a NATO-enforced safe haven for rebelsfighting to topple the Assad regime. The Patriot missile batteries, in other words, will function to embolden and legitimate those in both rebel and government ranks pushing a military solution to the crisis, while further sidelining those seeking the necessary political dialogue needed to ultimately resolve the crisis.

Dressing Up Intervention

The provocative deployment of the Patriot batteries, coupled with the orchestrated media furor over Syria‘s WMDs, thus makes it quite clear that the process of preparing the American public for the very real possibility of yet another US-led military intervention in the Middle East has begun in earnest. And once again, we see the veil of a humanitarian intervention and the “responsibility to protect” hastily donned to cloak nefarious motives.

The deafening silence of the US during just the latest round of Israeli aggression in the Gaza Strip mere weeks ago, however, ought to give pause to any still suspended in the illusion that humanitarian interests guide US foreign policy in the least. US foreign policy is instead dictated by imperial ambitions and imperatives. Andthese ambitions, it should to be noted, are not confined to Damascus, but stretch all the way to Tehran.

Secret legal advice states pre-emptive strike could be in breach of international law as Iran not yet ‘clear and present threat’

Britain has rebuffed US pleas to use military bases in the UK to support the build-up of forces in the Gulf, citing secret legal advice which states that any pre-emptive strike on Iran could be in breach of international law.

When the U.S. has bases surrounding Iran, why do they need Britain’s?

The Guardian has been told that US diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from US bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.

The US approaches are part of contingency planning over the nuclear standoff with Tehran, but British ministers have so far reacted coolly.

They have pointed US officials to legal advice drafted by the attorney general’s office which has been circulated to Downing Street, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.

This makes clear that Iran, which has consistently denied it has plans to develop a nuclear weapon, does not currently represent “a clear and present threat”. Providing assistance to forces that could be involved in a pre-emptive strike would be a clear breach of international law, it states.

“The UK would be in breach of international law if it facilitated what amounted to a pre-emptive strike on Iran,” said a senior Whitehall source. “It is explicit. The government has been using this to push back against the Americans.”

Sources said the US had yet to make a formal request to the British government, and that they did not believe an acceleration towards conflict was imminent or more likely. The discussions so far had been to scope out the British position, they said.

“But I think the US has been surprised that ministers have been reluctant to provide assurances about this kind of upfront assistance,” said one source. “They’d expect resistance from senior Liberal Democrats, but it’s Tories as well. That has come as a bit of a surprise.”

The situation reflects the lack of appetite within Whitehall for the UK to be drawn into any conflict, though the Royal Navy has a large presence in the Gulf in case the ongoing diplomatic efforts fail.

The navy has up to 10 ships in the region, including a nuclear-powered submarine. Its counter-mine vessels are on permanent rotation to help ensure that the strategically important shipping lanes through the Strait of Hormuz remain open.

The Guardian has been told that a British military delegation with a strong navy contingent flew to US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, earlier this summer to run through a range of contingency plans with US planners.

The UK, however, has assumed that it would only become involved once a conflict had already begun, and has been reluctant to commit overt support to Washington in the buildup to any military action.

“It is quite likely that if the Israelis decided to attack Iran, or the Americans felt they had to do it for the Israelis or in support of them, the UK would not be told beforehand,” said the source. “In some respects, the UK government would prefer it that way.”

Lots of U.S. bases around Iran

British and US diplomats insisted that the two countries regarded a diplomatic solution as the priority. But this depends on the White House being able to restrain Israel, which is nervous that Iran’s underground uranium enrichment plant will soon make its nuclear programme immune to any outside attempts to stop it.

Israel has a less developed strike capability and its window for action against Iran will close much more quickly than that of the US, explained another official. “The key to holding back Israel is Israeli confidence that the US will deal with Iran when the moment is right.”

Six global powers will spearhead a drive which is likely to involve an offer to lift some of the sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy in return for Tehran limiting its stockpile of enriched uranium.

The countries involved are the US, the UK, France, Germany, Russia and China. Iran will be represented by its chief negotiator, Saeed Jalili.

A Foreign Office spokesman said:

“As we continue to make clear, the government does not believe military action against Iran is the right course of action at this time, although no option is off the table. We believe that the twin-track approach of pressure through sanctions, which are having an impact, and engagement with Iran is the best way to resolve the nuclear issue.

We are not going to speculate about scenarios in which military action would be legal. That would depend on the circumstances at the time.”

The Foreign Office said it would not disclose whether the attorney general’s advice has been sought on any specific issue.

A US state department official said: “The US and the UK co-ordinate on all kinds of subjects all the time, on a huge range of issues. We never speak on the record about these types of conversations.”

General Dempsey put the breaks on the pre-emptive Iran attack

The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, warned at the UN general assembly last month that Iran’s nuclear programme would reach Israel’s “red line” by “next spring, at most by next summer”, implying that Israel might then take military action in an attempt to destroy nuclear sites and set back the programme.

That red line, which Netanyahu illustrated at the UN with a marker pen on a picture of a bomb, is defined by Iranian progress in making uranium enriched to 20%, which would be much easier than uranium enriched to 5% to turn into weapons-grade material, should Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, take the strategic decision to abandon Iran’s observance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and try to make a weapon. Tehran insists it has no such intention.